Staff Reports
The latest circus act in the never-ending legal saga against Donald Trump showcases the absurdity that the left has reached in their desperate attempts to derail his political aspirations. It’s a spectacle so lacking in actual merit that you have to wonder if they were given their cue from a Saturday Night Live skit. This civil fraud case, boasting a steep $464 million judgment issued by a judge who apparently split his time between the courtroom and a radical political rally, is yet another instance where the far-left’s driven obsession with Trump is playing out on a grand stage, largely unappreciated by the American public.
The reality is that this judge, with a decision clearly influenced by his partisan leanings, declared that Trump and his organization had somehow defrauded the banks—a claim so ridiculous that even the banks involved chuckled at the notion. In fact, this so-called fraud was so non-existent that it never left even the faintest whiff of actual victimhood. No bereft lenders mourning their lost cash, just a gaggle of deranged leftists, led by Attorney General Letitia James, clamoring for the cameras as they push forward with their latest legal farce.
Trump’s Huge Civil Fraud Penalty Draws Skepticism From Appeals Court – @ColinRMoynihan @NYTimes
“You’ve got two really sophisticated parties in which no one lost any money.” – Justice David Friedmanhttps://t.co/bf60icXB94
“Sorry, but what’s being described sounds an awful…
— Stephen Landry (@landryst) September 27, 2024
It’s laughable enough for observers to consider that this five-judge panel in New York’s midlevel appeals court seemed just as bemused as the general public at the state’s flimsy arguments. When confronted with the fact that banks conducted their own due diligence, making it clear they found no risk involved with Trump’s dealings, one has to wonder. Were they trying to pull a fast one on the judicial system? Doubtful. The reality is these banks chose to work with Trump—perhaps because they recognized a good deal when they saw one, which happens to be more than can be said for some of the state lawyers.
Of course, seeking justice for non-existent victims is the left’s preferred pastime. The courts have become their playground, where they can create political narratives to fit their agenda. Trump’s attorney, D. John Sauer, promptly noted how absurd it is that decades-old financial statements are being used as leverage for crippling penalties. It would be akin to punishing a six-year-old for a misstep they made in kindergarten, except in this scenario, the parties involved might have actually conducted themselves with more integrity.
As the New York appeals court deliberates, it seems prudent to recognize that just as with the laughable hush money saga tied to Stormy Daniels, the timing of the judgment may conveniently align with election season. The real aim here appears to be creating distractions and landing blows that paint Trump as a criminal—despite the glaring lack of evidence. It’s almost as if the left would rather try Trump in the court of public opinion than in a courtroom where guilt is established through actual evidence. With Trump’s resilience, this legal comedy is far from over, and the outcome could ultimately be as entertaining as it is consequential for the GOP and its frontrunner.
